BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

-

Yıl 2014, , 1331 - 1351, 03.11.2014

Turgay Alakurt , Hafize Keser

https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.51270
Cited By: 2

Öz

Knowledge sharing is seen as one of the most vital processes for knowledge management and virtual communities of practice (VCoPs). In this study, knowledge sharing behaviors between members of VCoPs and opinions about their community were investigated. We employed a qualitative research design. Data were gathered on the members through online observation of the messages in the VCoPs. Additional data were collected via semi-structured individual interviews. The results of the survey showed that the majority of the activity was Sharing Knowledge, followed by Talk/Conversation and Request. The most common type of knowledge shared was Sharing Resource. Results also showed that there was a significant difference between gender, time to become a member, means of communication used, types of knowledge and activities. Our results showed that people are more likely to participate in such communities because of “tangible returns”. The findings revealed that sharer members appear to be main motivator. On the other hand, disrupted issues were seen a major barrier.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Lifelong learning informal learning communities of practice knowledge sharing behaviour

Kaynakça

  • Amerikan Verimlilik ve Kalite Merkezi (American Productivity & Quality Center), (2000). Building and Sustaining Communities of Practice: Continuing in Knowledge Management. Houston: American Productivity & Quality Center.
  • Ardichvili, A., Page, V. & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and Barriers to Participation In Online Knowledge-Sharing Communities Of Practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–
  • Avrupa Topluluğu Komisyonu (Commission of European Communities), (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. [Online]: http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/MemorandumEng.pdf adresinden 2 Mayıs 2010’da alınmıştır.
  • Boardia, P., Irmer, B.E. & Abusah, D., (2006). Differences in sharing knowledge interpersonally and via databases: The role of evaluation apprehension and perceived benefits. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 15(3), 262–280, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320500417784
  • Bork, A. (2001). What is Needed for Effective Learning on the Internet?. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 4(3), 139-144.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum (6. baskı). Ankara: Pegem A yayıncılık.
  • Chen, I. Y. L., Chen, N.-S. & Kinshuk. (2009). Examining the Factors Influencing Participants' Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Virtual Learning Communities. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 134-148.
  • Chowdhury, S. (2005). The role of affect- and cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 310-326.
  • Carlson, J. R. &e Davis, G. B. (1998). An investigation of media selection among directors and managers: From ‘‘self” to ‘‘other” orientation. MIS Quarterly, 22(3),335–362.
  • Carroll, J., Choo, C., Dunlap, D., Isenhour, P., Kerr, S., MacLean, A., et al. (2003). Knowledge Management Support for Teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 42–64.
  • Chiu, S.-H. (2010). Students’ Knowledge Sources and Knowledge Sharing In The Design Studio—An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 27-42. Cross, R., Bogatti, P. & Parker, A. (2001). Beyond answers: dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23(3), 215-35.
  • Damoense, M. Y. (2003). Online Learning: Implications for Effective Learning for Higher Education in South Africa. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 25–45.
  • Dubé, L., Bourhis, A. & Jacob, R. (2006). Towards a Typology of Virtual Communities of Practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 1, 69-93.
  • Fang, Y.-H. & Chiu, C.-M. (2010). In Justice We Trust: Exploring Knowledge-Sharing Continuance Intentions In Virtual Communities Of Practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 2352
  • Gross, N. & Kluge, A. (2012). “Why should I share what I know?” -Antecedents for enhancing knowledge-sharing behavior and its impact on shared mental models in steel production. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 403-407. Hara, N. (2007). IT Support For Communities Of Practice: How Public Defenders Learn About Winning and Losing In Court. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 76–87.
  • Hayes, N. & Walsham, G. (2000). Competing interpretations of computer supported co-operative work. Organization, 7(1), 49-67.
  • Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
  • Hew, K. F. & Hara, N. (2006). Identifying Factors That Encourage And Hinder Knowledge Sharing in a Longstanding Online Community of Practice. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(3), 297-3
  • Hew, K. F. & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical Study of Motivators and Barriers of Teacher Online Knowledge Sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 573–595.
  • Hsu, J.-L., Chou, H.-W., Hwang, W.-Y. & Chou, S.-B. (2008). A Two-Dimension Process in Explaining Learners’ Collaborative Behaviors in CSCL. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (4), 66–80.
  • Johann, S., Christina, K. & Manfred, T. (2009). Personality traits, usage patterns and information disclosure in online communities. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
  • Johnson, C. (2001). A Survey of Current Research on Online Communities Of Practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45-60.
  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. USA: SAGE Publications.
  • Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lin, C.-P. (2006). Gender differs: Modeling knowledge sharing from a perspective of social network ties. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(3), 236-241. doi: 10.1111/j.1467839X.2006.00202.x
  • Lin, C.-A. & Chen, M.-C. (2009). Factors Effecting Teachers’ Knowledge Sharing Behaviours and Motivation: System Functions That Work. [Online]: http://120.107.180.177/1832/9802/98-214pa.pdf. adresinden 10 Mayıs 2011’de alınmıştır.
  • Liedtka, J. (1999). Linking Competitive Advantage with Communities of Practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(1), 5-16.
  • McLure Wasko, M. & Faraj, S. (2000). "It is what one does": Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2-3), 155-1
  • McLure Wasko, M. & Faraj, S. (2005). Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. [Online]: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6292016/Why-should-I-share-Examining.html adresinden 1 Mart 2010’da alınmıştır.
  • Miller, D.L. & Karakowski, L. (2005). Gender influences as an impediment to knowledge sharing: when men and women fail to seek peer feedback. The Journal of Psychology, 139(2), 101-18. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
  • Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ojha, A. K. (2005). Impact of team demography on knowledge sharing in software project teams. South Asian Journal of Management, 12, 67-78.
  • Osterloh, M. & Frey, B.S. (2000), Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538-50.
  • Özdener, N. & Öztok, M. (2005). Türk ve İngiliz Öğretim Programlarının Bilgisayar ve Internet Okur Yazarlığı Açısından Karşılaştırılması. [Online]: http://www.yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/167/orta3-ozyok.htm adresinden 22 Mart 2010’da alınmıştır.
  • Özmen, H. (2004). Fen Öğretiminde Öğrenme Teorileri ve Teknoloji Destekli Yapılandırmacı (Constructivist) Öğrenme. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3, 1
  • Robey, D., Khoo, H. M. & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(1), 51-66.
  • Senemoğlu, N. (2007). Gelişim Öğrenme ve Öğretim: Kuramdan Uygulamaya. Ankara: Gönül Yayıncılık.
  • Suh, A. & Shin, K.-S. (2010). Exploring the effects of online social ties on knowledge sharing: A comparative analysis of collocated vs dispersed teams. J. Inf. Sci., 36(4), 443-463.
  • Squire, K. & Johnson, C. (2000). Supporting Distributed Communities of Practice with Interactive Television. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 23-43.
  • Stanoevska-Slabeva, K. & Schmid, B. F. (2001). A Typology of Online Communities and Community Supporting Platforms. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2004). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (4. Basım). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
  • Yu, T.-K., Lu, L.-C. ve Liu, T.-F. (2010). Exploring Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing Behavior via Weblogs. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 32-41.
  • Watson, S. & Hewett, K. (2006). A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in organizations: Determinants of knowledge contribution and knowledge reuse. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 141-173.
  • Wei, F.-H. & Chen, G.-D. (2006). Collaborative Mentor Support in a Learning Context Using a Ubiquitous Discussion Forum to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing for Lifelong Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 917-935.
  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization, 7(2), 2252
  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Sanal Uygulama Topluluğu Üyelerinin Bilgi Paylaşma Davranışlarının İncelenmesi

Yıl 2014, , 1331 - 1351, 03.11.2014

Turgay Alakurt , Hafize Keser

https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.51270
Cited By: 2

Öz

Bu çalışmada, sanal uygulama topluluğu üyelerinin bilgi paylaşma süreçlerinde ne tür davranışlar sergiledikleri ve toplulukları ile ilgili çeşitli görüşleri belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Araştırma verileri nitel veri toplama tekniklerinden yararlanılarak belirli ölçütleri karşılayan altı topluluktan elde edilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak ortam kayıtları değerlendirme formu ve yarı yapılandırılnış görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre topluluk üyelerinin en çok Bilgi Paylaşma, Görüş/Sohbet ve İstek etkinliklerinde bulundukları belirlenmiştir. Üyelerin en çok paylaştıkları bilgi türü ise Kaynak Paylaşma’dır. Topluluk üyelerinin gerçekleştirdikleri etkinliklerin ve paylaştıkları bilgi türlerinin cinsiyete, topluluğa üye olma süresine ve kullanılan iletişim aracına göre farklılaştığı belirlenmiştir. Üyelerin topluluğa katılma nedenleri incelendiğinde ise maddi nedenlerin ön planda olduğu görülmektedir. Üyelerin, bilgi paylaşma süreçlerinde en beğendikleri durum, iletilerine anında ve birden fazla dönüt alabilmeleri; en rahatsızlık duydukları durum ise konunun dağılması olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yaşam boyu öğrenme informal öğrenme uygulama toplulukları bilgi paylaşma davranışı

Kaynakça

  • Amerikan Verimlilik ve Kalite Merkezi (American Productivity & Quality Center), (2000). Building and Sustaining Communities of Practice: Continuing in Knowledge Management. Houston: American Productivity & Quality Center.
  • Ardichvili, A., Page, V. & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and Barriers to Participation In Online Knowledge-Sharing Communities Of Practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–
  • Avrupa Topluluğu Komisyonu (Commission of European Communities), (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. [Online]: http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/MemorandumEng.pdf adresinden 2 Mayıs 2010’da alınmıştır.
  • Boardia, P., Irmer, B.E. & Abusah, D., (2006). Differences in sharing knowledge interpersonally and via databases: The role of evaluation apprehension and perceived benefits. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 15(3), 262–280, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320500417784
  • Bork, A. (2001). What is Needed for Effective Learning on the Internet?. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 4(3), 139-144.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum (6. baskı). Ankara: Pegem A yayıncılık.
  • Chen, I. Y. L., Chen, N.-S. & Kinshuk. (2009). Examining the Factors Influencing Participants' Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Virtual Learning Communities. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 134-148.
  • Chowdhury, S. (2005). The role of affect- and cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 310-326.
  • Carlson, J. R. &e Davis, G. B. (1998). An investigation of media selection among directors and managers: From ‘‘self” to ‘‘other” orientation. MIS Quarterly, 22(3),335–362.
  • Carroll, J., Choo, C., Dunlap, D., Isenhour, P., Kerr, S., MacLean, A., et al. (2003). Knowledge Management Support for Teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 42–64.
  • Chiu, S.-H. (2010). Students’ Knowledge Sources and Knowledge Sharing In The Design Studio—An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 27-42. Cross, R., Bogatti, P. & Parker, A. (2001). Beyond answers: dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23(3), 215-35.
  • Damoense, M. Y. (2003). Online Learning: Implications for Effective Learning for Higher Education in South Africa. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 25–45.
  • Dubé, L., Bourhis, A. & Jacob, R. (2006). Towards a Typology of Virtual Communities of Practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 1, 69-93.
  • Fang, Y.-H. & Chiu, C.-M. (2010). In Justice We Trust: Exploring Knowledge-Sharing Continuance Intentions In Virtual Communities Of Practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 2352
  • Gross, N. & Kluge, A. (2012). “Why should I share what I know?” -Antecedents for enhancing knowledge-sharing behavior and its impact on shared mental models in steel production. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 403-407. Hara, N. (2007). IT Support For Communities Of Practice: How Public Defenders Learn About Winning and Losing In Court. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 76–87.
  • Hayes, N. & Walsham, G. (2000). Competing interpretations of computer supported co-operative work. Organization, 7(1), 49-67.
  • Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
  • Hew, K. F. & Hara, N. (2006). Identifying Factors That Encourage And Hinder Knowledge Sharing in a Longstanding Online Community of Practice. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(3), 297-3
  • Hew, K. F. & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical Study of Motivators and Barriers of Teacher Online Knowledge Sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 573–595.
  • Hsu, J.-L., Chou, H.-W., Hwang, W.-Y. & Chou, S.-B. (2008). A Two-Dimension Process in Explaining Learners’ Collaborative Behaviors in CSCL. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (4), 66–80.
  • Johann, S., Christina, K. & Manfred, T. (2009). Personality traits, usage patterns and information disclosure in online communities. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
  • Johnson, C. (2001). A Survey of Current Research on Online Communities Of Practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45-60.
  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. USA: SAGE Publications.
  • Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lin, C.-P. (2006). Gender differs: Modeling knowledge sharing from a perspective of social network ties. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(3), 236-241. doi: 10.1111/j.1467839X.2006.00202.x
  • Lin, C.-A. & Chen, M.-C. (2009). Factors Effecting Teachers’ Knowledge Sharing Behaviours and Motivation: System Functions That Work. [Online]: http://120.107.180.177/1832/9802/98-214pa.pdf. adresinden 10 Mayıs 2011’de alınmıştır.
  • Liedtka, J. (1999). Linking Competitive Advantage with Communities of Practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(1), 5-16.
  • McLure Wasko, M. & Faraj, S. (2000). "It is what one does": Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2-3), 155-1
  • McLure Wasko, M. & Faraj, S. (2005). Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. [Online]: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6292016/Why-should-I-share-Examining.html adresinden 1 Mart 2010’da alınmıştır.
  • Miller, D.L. & Karakowski, L. (2005). Gender influences as an impediment to knowledge sharing: when men and women fail to seek peer feedback. The Journal of Psychology, 139(2), 101-18. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
  • Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ojha, A. K. (2005). Impact of team demography on knowledge sharing in software project teams. South Asian Journal of Management, 12, 67-78.
  • Osterloh, M. & Frey, B.S. (2000), Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538-50.
  • Özdener, N. & Öztok, M. (2005). Türk ve İngiliz Öğretim Programlarının Bilgisayar ve Internet Okur Yazarlığı Açısından Karşılaştırılması. [Online]: http://www.yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/167/orta3-ozyok.htm adresinden 22 Mart 2010’da alınmıştır.
  • Özmen, H. (2004). Fen Öğretiminde Öğrenme Teorileri ve Teknoloji Destekli Yapılandırmacı (Constructivist) Öğrenme. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3, 1
  • Robey, D., Khoo, H. M. & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(1), 51-66.
  • Senemoğlu, N. (2007). Gelişim Öğrenme ve Öğretim: Kuramdan Uygulamaya. Ankara: Gönül Yayıncılık.
  • Suh, A. & Shin, K.-S. (2010). Exploring the effects of online social ties on knowledge sharing: A comparative analysis of collocated vs dispersed teams. J. Inf. Sci., 36(4), 443-463.
  • Squire, K. & Johnson, C. (2000). Supporting Distributed Communities of Practice with Interactive Television. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 23-43.
  • Stanoevska-Slabeva, K. & Schmid, B. F. (2001). A Typology of Online Communities and Community Supporting Platforms. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2004). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (4. Basım). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
  • Yu, T.-K., Lu, L.-C. ve Liu, T.-F. (2010). Exploring Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing Behavior via Weblogs. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 32-41.
  • Watson, S. & Hewett, K. (2006). A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in organizations: Determinants of knowledge contribution and knowledge reuse. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 141-173.
  • Wei, F.-H. & Chen, G.-D. (2006). Collaborative Mentor Support in a Learning Context Using a Ubiquitous Discussion Forum to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing for Lifelong Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 917-935.
  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization, 7(2), 2252
  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Toplam 47 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Turgay Alakurt

Hafize Keser Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 3 Kasım 2014
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2014

Kaynak Göster

APA Alakurt, T., & Keser, H. (2014). -. İlköğretim Online, 13(4), 1331-1351. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.51270
AMA Alakurt T, Keser H. -. İOO. Kasım 2014;13(4):1331-1351. doi:10.17051/io.2014.51270
Chicago Alakurt, Turgay, ve Hafize Keser. “-”. İlköğretim Online 13, sy. 4 (Kasım 2014): 1331-51. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.51270.
EndNote Alakurt T, Keser H (01 Kasım 2014) -. İlköğretim Online 13 4 1331–1351.
IEEE T. Alakurt ve H. Keser, “-”, İOO, c. 13, sy. 4, ss. 1331–1351, 2014, doi: 10.17051/io.2014.51270.
ISNAD Alakurt, Turgay - Keser, Hafize. “-”. İlköğretim Online 13/4 (Kasım 2014), 1331-1351. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.51270.
JAMA Alakurt T, Keser H. -. İOO. 2014;13:1331–1351.
MLA Alakurt, Turgay ve Hafize Keser. “-”. İlköğretim Online, c. 13, sy. 4, 2014, ss. 1331-5, doi:10.17051/io.2014.51270.
Vancouver Alakurt T, Keser H. -. İOO. 2014;13(4):1331-5.

Cited By

Kullanımlar ve Doyumlar Yaklaşımı Çerçevesinde Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Sistemi Çevrimiçi Öğrenci Topluluklarının Motivasyonlarının İncelenmesi
Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1136336
SANAL ÖĞRENME TOPLULUĞUNDAKİ ÖĞRENCİLERİN BİLGİ PAYLAŞMA DAVRANIŞLARINA ETKİ EDEN FAKTÖRLERİN İNCELENMESİ
Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama
Ramazan Yılmaz
https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.288486